Are we talking about the same thing? Stakeholder perspectives on grassland management intensity

Grassland management crucially influences the delivery of ecosystem services from permanent grasslands. Variability in management practices is often described along a gradient from ‘low intensity’ to ‘high intensity’. These terms are likely to carry different meanings across European regions that differ inenvironmental and socio-economic conditions as well as between different groups of stakeholders. We conducted an online survey among grassland stakeholders asking them to characterise what they consider as ‘low’, ‘intermediate’ and ‘high’-intensity management in terms of cutting frequency, grazing intensity, and nitrogen fertilization. The answers of the 125 respondents revealed high variability in the thresholds between management intensity levels. Professional background (‘agriculture’ vs ‘ecology/ conservation’) explained only a small percentage of the variability. The biogeographical region on which the respondents’ expertise was based also influenced the evaluation of management practices. Our survey exposed the hidden problem of communicating about grassland management across regions and professional backgrounds, and identifies a need for a common terminology when making generalrecommendations for sustainable grassland management

Are we talking about the same thing? Stakeholder perspectives on grassland management intensity

Grassland management crucially influences the delivery of ecosystem services from permanent grasslands. Variability in management practices is often described along a gradient from ‘low intensity’ to ‘high intensity’. These terms are likely to carry different meanings across European regions that differ in environmental and socio-economic conditions as well as between different groups of stakeholders. We conducted an online survey among grassland stakeholders asking them to characterise what they consider as ‘low’, ‘intermediate’ and ‘high’-intensity management in terms of cutting frequency, grazing intensity, and nitrogen fertilization. The answers of the 125 respondents revealed high variability in the thresholds between management intensity levels. Professional background (‘agriculture’ vs ‘ecology/conservation’) explained only a small percentage of the variability. The biogeographical region on which the respondents’ expertise was based also influenced the evaluation of management practices. Our survey exposed the hidden problem of communicating about grassland management across regions and professional backgrounds, and identifies a need for a common terminology when making general recommendations for sustainable grassland management

A management-based typology for European permanent grasslands

European permanent grasslands (PG) vary widely in their delivery of agricultural outputs and other ecosystem services and hence in their challenges and opportunities for sustainable grassland management. To facilitate communication and knowledge transfer, improve inventories, ease mapping and provide a framework for future data collection across the whole range of European PG, we have developed a two-level grassland typology that focuses on PG management (defoliation, fertilisation, renewal) and its determinants (productivity potential, presence of woody plants, additional site attributes affecting management). The typology consists of eight first-level and 18 subordinate second-level classes, based on management intensity, productivity potential, presence of woody plants and grassland renewal intervals. It is applicable both at field and regional scales and is cross-referenced with existing classification schemes such as the EUNIS and Natura 2000 habitats classes. We present the typology and its main classification criteria, and discuss options for its future implementation

Ecosystem service research in grasslands at 31 experimental farms, networks and demonstration platforms across Europe

Grassland research stations and experimental farms are essential for applied grassland science and related outreach activities. A large proportion of the experiments conducted at these stations aims to test methods to optimize the ecosystem services (ES) delivered by permanent grasslands. We used the framework of the multi-actor research project SUPER-G to assess a selection of experiments recently conducted, completed (since 2011), and planned at 31 European experimental research stations, farms, or networks. We further provide an overview of the ES measured at these experiments. Results show that on average two ES were assessed per experiment. The most frequent ES measured were production (87% of all experiments), followed by the supporting ES biodiversity (59%) and climate regulation (33%). Our overview on ES research at European research stations highlights that permanent grassland is a multifunctional ecosystem that provides many benefits to society. Yet, research considering more than two ES is still relatively rare and should thus be strengthened in the future

European permanent grasslands mainly threatened by abandonment, heat and drought, and conversion to temporary grassland

Permanent grassland (PG) covers 35% of the agricultural area in the EU-28. Across Europe, PG exists in many contrasting managed or unmanaged environments where it contributes to feed supply, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, aesthetic value, recreation, clean water and prevention of soil loss. The delivery of these PG ecosystem services is under threat by land use change, climate change and sub-optimal management. We carried out a survey among experts to assess the threats within their countries. Respondents described the main PG-types, together with their areas, and assessed to what extent a particular PG-type is threatened by intensification, land use change, climate change or nitrogen (N) depositions. Threats were scored on a three-point scale: no, small or great. Replies were received from 11 countries (CH, CZ, DE, ES, HU, IT, ME, NL, PL, SE, UK), representing the main biogeographic zones in Europe. The dataset contained 83 PG- types on a total area of 25 Mha. Abandonment, heat and drought stress and conversion to temporary grassland were considered as the largest threats, each considered as a great threat on PG-types covering 8 to 9 Mha (~35%). The second largest group comprised N depositions, conversion to arable land and intensification, each as a great threat on PG-types covering 4 to 5 Mha (~20%)